The case revolves around Cruzeiro Esporte Clube's appeal against disciplinary sanctions imposed by FIFA for failing to comply with a financial obligation mandated by a Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decision. The CAS had ordered Cruzeiro to pay Al-Wahda FC €850,000 plus interest and additional costs, stemming from a prior ruling by FIFA's Players' Status Committee. Despite partial appeals and adjustments to interest calculations, Cruzeiro failed to meet its payment obligations, prompting Al-Wahda to seek FIFA's intervention. FIFA initiated disciplinary proceedings under Article 64 of its Disciplinary Code, which allows sanctions for non-compliance, including fines, point deductions, or transfer bans. Cruzeiro was given multiple opportunities to settle the debt, including a 90-day grace period, but cited financial difficulties and Brazil's economic crisis as reasons for non-payment. FIFA rejected these arguments, emphasizing that financial hardship does not excuse contractual obligations under Swiss law and the principle of pacta sunt servanda. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee imposed a fine of CHF 30,000 and a potential six-point deduction, with the latter to be enforced only if Cruzeiro continued to default.
Cruzeiro appealed to CAS, arguing that the sanctions violated principles of good governance, transparency, and proportionality, and lacked legal basis. The club contended that FIFA's disciplinary system was opaque, with undisclosed precedents, making it impossible to anticipate or challenge the sanctions. Cruzeiro also claimed the sanctions were disproportionate, as similar cases involved higher debts but identical penalties, and the points deduction could unfairly relegate the club. The CAS Sole Arbitrator examined the case, noting that while CAS generally has broad review powers, it exercises restraint when reviewing sanctions by sports federations, intervening only if they are evidently disproportionate. The arbitrator found that FIFA's sanctions were justified, predictable, and aligned with established jurisprudence. Cruzeiro's failure to pay, despite repeated warnings and opportunities, demonstrated deliberate non-compliance, and its financial difficulties were deemed insufficient to excuse the breach. The arbitrator upheld the fine and potential points deduction, emphasizing their deterrent purpose and proportionality.
The ruling underscores the importance of compliance with FIFA and CAS decisions, reinforcing that clubs cannot evade financial obligations without consequences. It affirms FIFA's authority to enforce sanctions under Article 64 of its Disciplinary Code and highlights the limited scope of CAS review in disciplinary matters. The decision also clarifies that financial hardship does not absolve clubs of their contractual duties unless due to unforeseeable force majeure events. Ultimately, the CAS dismissed Cruzeiro's appeal, upheld FIFA's disciplinary measures, and ordered the club to bear all legal costs, concluding the case with a firm stance on the enforcement of financial obligations in football governance.